Comments

Now don’t go using that language – Luke1 has gone back to the States – you now have Luke2 – I’m waiting here for my friends and listening to some quiet music. Deltoids just go and chatter among yourselves about things that amuse you. Don’t mind us – we just thought we’d use the venue given it wasn’t being used for anything else of note.

As Lotharsson says, it is always projection with these types, along with the juvenile toilet and sexual low-tones of language. I didn’t realise that they were using kindergarten as a pool for lawyers, and security dog’s bodies.

And Luke fails to understand the important of the Wegman fiasco which exposed McIntyre to another spotlight. And Cox, well did he really study climatology?

He missed the bits about what science is, and isn’t and the difference between climate and weather and how we can tell the difference. Cox must have come down in the last meteor shower and has yet to develop a robust cognitive framework on this topic.

One can sense the increase in frequency of perturbations there – hint that is a big clue about one of the topics in that above statement.

The trouble with many lawyers is that they never let the truth get in the way of the right result for their client and they think science works this way too. BK had a lawyer-speak bent and we know where that went.

What, you call yourself a lawyer and you can’t even figure out that it’s the NSF link itself that’s borked, and not Craig Thomas’s duplication of it?

How is it “borked”? I just clicked on it, and a pdf comes up just fine.

Vince.

It’s a bit odd. I tried on two separate computers, and the first didn’t open up from Craig’s link or from the NSF’s link (which is not surprising as they are one and the same) but both work fine from my home computer.

Still, cohenite’s inability to find evencached files is demonstrated, as is his fear of confronting John Mashey about Mashey’s extremely detailed research.

It seems that cohenite doesn’t want to admit that Salby is an unreliable witness.

And if carne deshebradadoesn’t mean, “meat, with hebrews taken out of it”, I guess my Spanish isn’t quite up to his standards.
I’m sure the “scumbags” doesn’t come out of the same innermost recesses that his mate, Joanne Codling, gets her “international bankers” conspiracy theories from.

The Subject provided deceptive and incomplete information to NSF about his affiliations with Company 1, and inaccurate information to NSF OIG about his affiliations with Company 1 and Company 2.

The Subject provided deceptive or misleading statements to the University on his conflicts of interest forms and financial disclosure forms, and provided false and deceptive information to the University during the investigation about his additional external remuneration

Subject’s actions as delineated in each Finding summarized above were taken to maximize his personal financial compensation, and to shield the extent of his compensation from discovery or accountability.

Just imagine if Michael Mann had ever been caught faking a timesheet? The hullaballoo we’d have heard from the Murdoch media, eh?

Defending a criminal convicted of theft and claiming he is innocent, because the court ultimately did not find him guilty of assault. That’s Cox’ argument in a nutshell. Forget that theft thingie, he was not guilty of the assault, and therefore innocent of everything!

“Net annual emission has an average increase of about 1.5ppmv per year. We’re on the right planet. That’s the annual average increase you just saw. But it varies between years, dramatically by over 100%. From nearly zero in some years to 3ppmv in others. Net global emission of CO2 changes independently of of the human contribution”

At this point the accentuation and drama in Salby’s voice make it sound as though he has stumbled onto something momentous, something no one else has noticed before. On the face of it, it seems preposterous that the army of scientists that have worked on carbon cycling over the years could have missed something so glaringly obvious. No, of course they haven’t.

Hilariously, they then spray their rancid projections right back at the rest of us as festering conspiracist ideation, the barely disguised belief that “climate scientists” are faking data and fooling the public for financial and political gain.

I give another chance to take of reality, which you ideology greenpisser don’t like:

The scientific evidence for the validity of the AGW hypothesis is weak:

1) A global surface temperature increase has not been convincingly shown so far due to methodological weaknesses

2) Consequently a part of a hypothetical temperature increase – which could not be shown so far – due to anthropogenic CO2 is not demonstrated so far by climatology

3) GCMS do not provide any evidence for CO2 warming in reality. It’s only virtual reality and clouds cannot be modeled so far. Therefore this is methodological crap.

4) Harveys insect biology is irrelevant regarding the CO2 hypothesis. Life is always adapting to environment, but Harvey does not like this.

You greenpissers on deltoid are poor ideologists, far away from science. You are a shame for mankind. Try to remove your ideological greenpiss dirt and work hard to become decent citizens instead of staying unethical idiots.

If you say so, but by comparison you have been brainwashed by the Klimatariat into thinking increasing CO2 is going to make the planet inhospitable.

If temperatures had continued to rise this century the Warmista would have had the world in their pocket, but the Oz people are fundamentally sceptical and will vote against the motion that CO2 is a pollutant.

The Oz people can vote freely as is their democratic right. And they will. However, their beliefs on this matter won’t alter the way physics works. What troubles me is your incessant misrepresentation of scientific evidence in support of nothing more than a political position.

* * *

I haven’t been brainwashed by anybody, Gordy. My position is derived from topic knowledge, not political leanings.

We’re now entering King of Old Siam territory, but I have never belonged to, or consistently voted for, any political party. I am not, and have never been, a member of any ENGO or a supporter of one.

This is about physical climatology for me. This is why we have such fruitless conversations.

Incidentally, re Toomey et al. and going from the abstract only, as you doubtless are yourself, the authors point to precessional forcing and ENSO as possible mechanisms for the higher frequency of tropical cyclogenesis in the central Pacific. Precessional forcing was the main driver of early-mid Holocene warmth. Precessional forcing fell from a peak ~10ka right across the Holocene. Summer NH insolation declined by ~8% at a stable rate so it was ~4% above modern levels ~5ka. As Toomey et al. appear to acknowledge.

This study is of little comfort to those claiming that a warming climate *won’t* affect tropical cyclogenesis.

I must say that the tone of the discussion has not improved. One must assume that the Deltoid fraternity is not able to undertake a science discussion of any level and surrounds itself with pseudo-political rhetoric – a great pity that a blog so strong on themes has become day care facility for 6 or so highly eccentric and likely deeply psychotic individuals who seem unable to discuss any contemporary science without some slavish appeal to authority. Hardly a recommendation for inquisitive minds. What would a lay visitor gain from visiting here – certainly no level of public discourse worth the bandwidth.

If it gets warmer then we might expect cyclones to increase, but we are at the tail end of the Holocene and CO2 is not the main driver of temperatures so…. here’s something more on the Pacific by highly respected Mojib latif.

Latif is a strong supporter of the notion that CO2 causes global warming…. here’s more on the great climate shifts.

‘The winds change the ocean currents which in turn affect the climate. In our study, we were able to identify and realistically reproduce the key processes for the two abrupt climate shifts.’

‘We have taken a major step forward in terms of short-term climate forecasting, especially with regard to the development of global warming. However, we are still miles away from any reliable answers to the question whether the coming winter in Germany will be rather warm or cold.’

Thanks for the Philipona paper luke; alas I have to leave you; I’m out of the country meeting with some of my clients; first the various drug cartels in Mexico; then some of the money laundering organisations in Europe diverting money from various carbon trading shonks and then on to SE Asia to wrap up the next strategy for the boat smugglers.

UNlike the virtuous climate scientists who vet their financial sources so carefully I believe money is the ultimate expression of democracy!

BB, you’re my hero; I’ll be passing through the Casbah: let’s Rock the Casbah together BB; we’ll have such a time. Drop me a line if you can get here at:

With Salby’s value to the deniers now hovering somewhere around zero, presumably we’ll be back to Boretti next, the “coastal engineer” from an inland university, who isn’t a coastal engineer and whose name is sometimes Albert Parker.

Come on El Gordo, your great wheel of nonsense hasn’t landed on Boretti for ages.

Mr BBD – please stop being disingenuous and take that up with Luke1 – BTW – as saw it you called him twice and he responded. That puts you in the bad faith zone I’m afraid. You don’t get another turn if you’ve been caught out twice in a row. Your incrementalist campaigning style could be replaced with some intelligent comment to Luke1’s initial inquiry and list of issues but it’s not my problem that you’re not sufficiently intelligent to undertake a discussion.

I’m only here to discuss serious contemporary science with intelligent people and and waiting for Cohenite to return.

Mate we just become whatever persona makes you happy. You see that is the test of your objectivity. How much you read into what you don’t know. Remember there are many Lukes. A whole club of them. Or did I just tell you that? Do you know?

Just had a look on Austlii – there are two Anthony Coxs: one works for Centrelink, pursuing pathetics, the other works for Philips Fox, exclusively engaged in work for Dept of Immigration, also pursuing pathetics.
Could be the same guy, I guess.

Either way, he’s not exactly Geoffrey Robertson or Stuart Littlemore, that’s for sure.

Also ironic that this “sceptic” isn’t out there fighting for the little man, but is in fact a small cog in a large government machine.

Climate change denial must be the little escape into fantasy that helps him forget the tedium of his minnow status within the legal fraternity.

“CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL” ??????????
hahahahahaha!
Craig is just shooting messengers and in the process manages to shoot himself in the foot.
I can sort of see why your new friend ‘Luke of the changing avatars’ can’t resist poking fun at you people.
He appeared here to try and help you and you’re all so intent on being spiteful and rude that you have comprehensively and completely missed it.
Craig!!!!! Luke is correct and it is in fact the Deltoids who are attempting to escape into fantasy.
Your tactics are better suited to a school yard.
You are merely playing dirty politics.

Zhen-Shan and Xian (“Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years”, Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Vol.95, 2007 [http://www.springerlink.com/content/g28u12g2617j5021/]):

“A novel multi-timescale analysis method, Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD), is used to diagnose the variation of the annual mean temperature data of the global, Northern Hemisphere (NH) and China from 1881 to 2002. The results show that: (1) Temperature can be completely decomposed into four timescales quasi-periodic oscillations including an ENSO-like mode, a 6–8-year signal, a 20-year signal and a 60-year signal, as well as a trend. With each contributing ration of the quasi-periodicity discussed, the trend and the 60-year timescale oscillation of temperature variation are the most prominent.”

Of course if you really want to impress us you could tell us how the greenhouse effect works at a molecular level. In your own words please.

Why stop at the molecular level when you’ve got the quantum level, you ignorant faking moron? What really gripes you Luke is that you and your anti-science chums are impotent when faced with the science.

Don’t bloviate on a blog – go ahead and disprove that CO2 is warming the atmosphere. You can’t, as we know, which is why you do what you do.

You know, chek, it’s a real disappointment that wow, your sibling-rival, that mummy always liked best, has “cheked-out” of this blog–the little bug-out, wimp-toid weenie!–and left you as my prime inspiration for hive-abuse rants and tirades.

Frankly, I resent having to deal, on an “insprational” basis with a zit-spawn, suppurating, horror-story, flatulent-vegan-small-intestine-attached malignant-polyp-growth, like you chek! You know what I mean, guy?

Of course if you really want to impress us you could tell us how the greenhouse effect works at a molecular level. In your own words please.

I can help you out there, Luke: look up absorption spectroscopy. That will be your first clue.

Incidentally, will you explain atomic structure to us, in your own words?
Only, there’s a possibility that I’ve figured out something that all the physicists in the world had missed, but I just want to check things with you first, before I go public.

Feel free to piss off any time you like and find a forum more suitably grateful for your particular “contributions”. Apparently Jo Nova needs more traffic, as someone named Luke has been strongly implying here…